Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

NotBornYesterday writes "On April 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited his country's secretive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz for a photo op. What came out of this visit is a series of photos which have caused a fair amount of interest among western scientists. Shown in the photos are not only some of the inner workings of the plant and current generation of enrichment centrifuges, but also key components to newer generations of more effective centrifuges. Analysts are 'intrigued' not only by the technical revelations in the pictures, but also because Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar accompanied Ahmadinejad through the facility."

Way before the invasion of iraq we heard alot of how bad iraq was with their WMD:s and their connections to terrorism. And now what? No WMD:s no connection what so ever to al'quaida and what is the answer now? It was to bring democracy to Iraq.

And now it's irans turn, well you know what; this is a war that america can't afford. The dollar isn't worth salt so just turn the fucking propaganda machine of again.

Way before the invasion of iraq we heard alot of how bad iraq was with their WMD:s and their connections to terrorism. And now what? No WMD:s no connection what so ever to al'quaida and what is the answer now? It was to bring democracy to Iraq.

Hussein was bragging he had WMDs in order to stave off an invasion by Iran. Unfortunately his bragging was picked up by U.S. intelligent forces which of course assumed he wasn't bluffing. Since he was bluffing it explains why we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. Hussein's attempt at protecting his country from Iran backfired on him. And since this submission happens to also be talking about Iran and its progress dealing with their nuclear program it seems that Hussein's idea of touting his arsenal's power wasn't

The national debt has much to do with the value of the dollar. This war we can't afford has driven the national debt to the stratosphere. Your attributing the current problems of the dollar to the last 6 months is utter bullshit, the U.S. has been drained for years by central bankers, globalist megacorporations, and this war-without-end to line the pockets of war profiteers and oil tycoons.

The thing that really gets me about the media coverage is that everyone just assumes that Iran could only ever possibly be interested in attacking Israel or the USA. Like there isn't anybody nearby that might be more threatening, that they might one day have to defend themselves against. Certainly they wouldn't be near any large, nuclear-armed nations with a history of invading their neighbors and...oh, wait...As for bringing the defense minister along, well, what's strange about the defense minister inspec

"I suspect that has something to do with the President of Iran stating that his goal was to wipe Israel off the map. Some people don't take him seriously. People didn't take Hitler seriously, either."

It's called rhetoric and in this case actually refers to how Isreal was formed (which btw the US opposed at the time), the oft repeated statement has nothing to with nukes or conventional warfare and the neo-cons are fully aware of that fact. About 90% of Lebannon's population supports Hezbollah, 70% of Pale

I suspect that has something to do with the President of Iran stating that his goal was to wipe Israel off the map. Some people don't take him seriously. People didn't take Hitler seriously, either.

People should remember that in Iran "President" means something more like "Head of the Domestic Government", and that foreign policy and control of the military is reserved to the Supreme Leader (yes, that's the actual title), a man who has often wished for the Israeli government to fall apart or be destroyed, but who has not wished the same for the Israeli people.

And the "wiped from the map" quote is, at best, a disputed translation of Ahmedinejad misquoting a statement their Supreme Leader made about the Israeli government, and at worst it's just a bunch of random empty threats. We'd waste less of our time taking Chinese seriously when they claim all sorts of land as their own - they have a history of actually sending their army out to secure the claim.

And as far as the Hitler comment goes...come on. Show me where he's trying to usurp control of Iran for his own nefarious purposes. You don't honestly belive that he, and Khamene'i, and the councils that have some power over them, and all their advisors and assistants are all in it to blow up Jerusalem (which is actually holy to them) and then promptly die, do you? Not only that, but that they've somehow kept this a secret fom all the beurocrats that they employ to do their bidding, who would expose them in an instant if they were actually planning on getting Iran depopulated - let alone the Iranian people, who would certainly revolt if they seriously believed their leaders were out to get them killed.

All I see is a politician dancing for the cameras, trying to draw people's attention away from the fact that since their government directly controls something like half of that nation's economy (in addition to the usual stuff like education and the justice system and basic infrastructure), it is directly responsible for a huge portion of whatever domestic problems they may be having right now.

No. The nation-sized suicide bombing is top-grade bullshit. If they're building nukes they'll be using them the same way all the other countries that have nukes use theirs - as a cheap way to guarantee that nobody ever invades your territory to take your land.

I suspect that has something to do with the President of Iran stating that his goal was to wipe Israel off the map.

I've found some facts about this, it turned out that he never stated this.
He quoted someone who said something like "I wish the page of history on which Israel was created would never have been written".

There were a few more than a handful but they had been moved to other islands at the start of the atrocity before it was considered too much trouble to move them alive. Until recently it was taught in school that all the native people there had been wiped out but after their decendants complained that has been changed. It was an unbelievable act of evil to almost completely wipe out a people just to create a very large prison island and it happened over a single decade. Most of the "prison planet" scienc

When Americans talk about freedom, how can anyone listen, without breaking a sad smile?

Americans are unfortunate, for the populace has no control of its government or its destiny. It rests almost entirely in the hands of the financiers and moguls on Wall Street whose marching step follows a beat that most Americans are unaware of.

There is no congruity between the stated reasons for America's foreign policy and the facts as they stand.

There is no doubt in my mind that America will attack Iran, even though Iran poses no threat to any American citizen.

>>A world without a USA would be more peaceful and habitable and more moral by anyone's measure.A pathetic statement on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin. Are you completely ignorant of modern history? Have you no knowledge of international trade?

Without the USA, the world would starve. You are aware of the volume of US food exports, aren't you?Without the USA, international charity would collapse. The USA is the most charitable nation on earth?Without the USA, the United Nations wo

err... no...He is the same kind of species as the "butthurt patriot". They both make silly, simplistic statements that show they don't really understand the world at large; neither do they really care to. They prefer the caricature version that paints themselves and their own society as superior and anything that goes against this worldview is "propaganda". Remember folks, it is very easy to be critical and cynical of others. It is much harder to do that to yourself.

Without the USA, the world would starve. You are aware of the volume of US food exports, aren't you?

According to this article from 2004 [washingtonpost.com], 2005 was expected to be the first year when the US did not have a net agricultural surplus, i.e. it imported as much as it exported.

Without the USA, international charity would collapse. The USA is the most charitable nation on earth?

I believe it's true that Americans give more of their income to charity than other countries do, but much of that stays within the USA. In terms of foreign aid, the USA is quite far down the list [globalissues.org].

Without the USA, the United Nations would close up shop almost immediately. Who do you think funds MOST of the UN activities?

That NotBornYesterday seems to think that we were born yesterday. He wanted to make sure we knew that Iran's Defense Minister went on tour of the facility with Mahmoud. What I also find intriguing is that Iran wanted to turn the visit to a top secret facility into a photo op. Would President. Bush want to turn a visit to Area 51 into a photo op?

New rule. Before we start another war, we need to finish the first one. OK?

What I also find intriguing is that Iran wanted to turn the visit to a top secret facility into a photo op.

What better way to make idiots thing they're not hiding anything than by selectively showing us things. I could "prove" that the USA had no ICBM's with a few photo-ops in empty siloes - especially if I were willing to redecorate the siloes a trifle between photos to suggest that I'm showing ALL of them, rather than just three of them....

And to such a tour, which is to prove that you built those nuke silos only as shelters in case some terrible terrorist bombs you away, you take along your DOD head honcho along with key missile designers, and you put them prominently into the picture so they can't be missed?This can only mean one of two things: Either you're insanely stupid, or you want the rumors about your alleged missile program to fly high and have everyone in fear and awe of your (alleged) missile power. Which would be smart, you could

What I also find intriguing is that Iran wanted to turn the visit to a top secret facility into a photo op.

What better way to make idiots thing they're not hiding anything than by selectively showing us things. I could "prove" that the USA had no ICBM's with a few photo-ops in empty siloes - especially if I were willing to redecorate the siloes a trifle between photos to suggest that I'm showing ALL of them, rather than just three of them....

"Iran claims to have the world's third largest reserves of oil at approximately 136 billion barrels (21.6×109 m3) as of 2007, although it ranks second if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil are excluded. This is roughly 10 percent of the world's total proven petroleum reserves. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer and is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia."

He wanted to make sure we knew that Iran's Defense Minister went on tour of the facility with Mahmoud.

More to the point, that's not even something that ought to raise suspicion. In a region where terrorism is a real, daily threat, you want the military to be looking after security issues at an enrichment plant even if it is only being used for civilian purposes - you want them to be making absolutely sure that the facility is not open to abuse by those who would use it for more nefarious purposes.

If one is worried about terrorist attacks on a nuclear facility one doesn't send the Defense Minister to guard it. You're as much of an idiot as the others who disregard his presence as just a normal routine thing.

THEY ARE WORKING ON THE BOMB. When they have one they will use it, probably on Israel but possibly on the US.

I'm sorry, and people can mod me down all they want for this, but you're an idiot. It IS relevant that the Defense Minister was there. Everyone with half a brain knows that Iran is working towards having nuclear weapons. They figure that once then have them everyone will be afraid to touch them.People can blather about how it's ok for us so it's ok for them and engage in the normal moral relativism that is so rampant today, but I for one don't want to see a theocracy that condones suicide bombings to have

Agreed. It was all about power and control of world resources during the cold war. Now we have Iran working on Nukes and being led by a theocratic council whose figurehead to the world (President Achmadinawhackjob) believes that he is going to help bring on the end times. Those who don't believe that he is of that mind should spend some quality time Googling "the 12th Imam" and Achmadinajad.

I once attended a lecture where the speaker said that the best thing to do with Iran was to force them to produce uranium in a consortium. Europeans do this by sharing the same enrichment plant, and it lets them keep tabs on how enriched each country is making its uranium. With Iran's new centrifuge technology, I'm sure they would be welcome at an international plant, especially if it allayed fears about a weapons program.

I doubt the US want Iran to check their uranium enrichment plans. And neither the other way around. So a middle east consortium would be the at least thinkable solution. Now, do you think the US will tolerate or even trust a middle east consortium to act as a device to ensure no weapon capable uranium is produced?

Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich Uranium as part of a civilian program. Perhaps if Iran had not been the target of US sanctions since 1979 (when they overthrew the brutal western-backed Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK secret police), they would be more trusting about getting their nuclear fuel from outside. As it is, they have a mentality of being as independent and self-sufficient as possible.

Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5? Perhaps people feel the big 5 are so responsible that it's ok for them to posses them, but frankly the historical record does not back that up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, Richard Nixon is on tape suggesting a nuclear strike on North Vietnam and before the Iraq war, UK Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike (crazy I know).

The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention.

The NPT was a noble effort, and a necessary one for the sake of appearances, but even when the treaty was signed nobody seriously believed that the nuclear genie could be stuffed back into the bottle again. The efforts spent policing the nuclear forces of the world would be better spent in addressing the differences that lead to the desire to use these weapons in the first place.

To which their best response is to talk. It would be insane for any nation, especially a smaller one, to attack either the United States, China, Russia, or any of the other G-8 nations with nuclear weapons. The retaliatory response makes such an action unthinkable under any circumstances.

The purpose for a smaller nation in obtaining nuclear weapons would be one of deterrence. For example, the United States would not have risked invading Iraq if they though New York would be nuked in response, regardless of any nuclear superiority.

It would be better for Iran to talk, if their motives are truley peaceful as they claim. They should make the case clearly and let the court of world opinion decide instead of being secretive and coy with their international relations.

They are subject to IAEA inspections just like other NPT signatories. The inspections are there to ensure countries are not violating the treaty. How do you know that Brazil isn't secretly developing nuclear weapons? All we have to go on is the IAEA insp

False dichotomy.
Besides, Iran would be moving towards a more progressive and democratic society if some countries stops fueling the radicals.
And between an autocratic regime run by compatriots and a puppet regime subservient to former colonial powers, I'll take the former anytime.

Please spare me your diatribe about the Shah and SAVAK -- compared to the Mullahs of today many Iranians were better off during the Shah's reign than today.

I'm sure many Iranians got rich while the Shah was in power, but thousands of others were tortured and murdered by the SAVAK, an organisation trained and supported by the CIA and designed to curb dissent and keep the unpopular Shah in power. Iran might still have a parliamentary democracy now if we hadn't wrecked the one they had back in 1953 when we installed the Shah to regain control of the oil (which Mossadegh mistakenly believed belonged to Iran). After the revolution, the Iranians might not have g

Please spare me your diatribe about the Shah and SAVAK -- compared to the Mullahs of today many Iranians were better off during the Shah's reign than today.

Yes, but they were even better off under Mosadegh. You know, the popularly elected guy that the CIA removed from power because he had the gall to nationalize Iran's oil for the benefit of his people? The Mullahs of today could never have gotten the popular support of the Iranian people to overthrow him or more democratic people that could have followed.

The revolution and rise of the Mullahs can be traced almost directly to the removal of Mosadegh and the installation of the Shaw. The CIA even acknowledges this and applied the term "blow-back" to how badly the situation went.

So yeah, the Mullahs are bad, but most of the blame for them even being in power lies with the US. Imagine... we could have had that "model of democracy" in the Middle East had we supported Mosadegh rather than deposing him. Sure, just like any other sovereign country, there would be no guarantee that they would have "done our will", but frankly, I would rather have had Iran as a democratic ally rather than a theocratic enemy.

I wonder what nuking Iran would do for all the extremist among the Muslims out there who'd like to have an example of the US being an imperialist aggressor in the Muslim world. I suspect they'd be thrilled that we made their case for them.

Iran like any other signatory of the NPT has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also have a right to develop, purchase and sell said technology freely and without any hindrance as long as they abide by the NPT. Iran unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel (which are not signatories of the NPT) intends to use its nuclear technology for generating energy as a way to decrease dependence on oil exports (as any sane country should be doing now).

When other nuclear powers (lead by a country where its own president can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly) get in the way of this process it sends a clear message to other countries that are signatories of the NPT they it may not be as easy as they think to develop peaceful nuclear technologies within their own countries. As a result black-markets start popping up making ratifying the NPT all that more difficult.

If the US and UK just abide by the terms of the NPT then the majority of problems they are now seeing will all but disappear.

The president of Iran visits a top secret (!) nuclear facility, taks his defense minister along, and everything they do there (give or take...) is photographed and published.

Umm... am I the only one that wonders about the only question worth asking? I.e. why?

He is not dumb. Doing a tour to an uranium enrichment plan with your minister of defense and going public about it is not really what you do if you have a nuke program running and want to keep it secret. The very first reaction is, well, the reaction it caused. That's a no brainer. So the only logic conclusion is that this reaction was wanted.

And that again starts another round of asking why.

There are now two possible reasons. First, there is a nuke program and they are trying to create some sort of deterrent for an immediate strike, to show that they are able to retaliate. Second, there is no nuke program, but they want everyone to think there is one. Now, there is no strike planned (at least none that I know of), so the first reason makes little sense.

The second starts another round of why.

Personally, I could see a plan. The US will start a new ralley for nuke inspections in Iran, finally Iran will grudgingly agree, they will poke and prod and find nothing, and Iran can do another finger pointing at the US as some aggressor, which only thinks the worst of any country they can't control, discredit the US internationally.

When things like this come out, it is hard to know how much of it is real. We can recall that the old USSR was masters of such public relations, convincing every organization on earth that they remained a player, costing the US taxpayer trillions in unneeded expenditures. In an older example the british empire managed to continue the façade of a world power well into the 20th century using such tactics.

I believe they are taking a page out of the N. Korean playbook, taunting the world with images and tests, and then laughing when the world, particularly the US, can do nothing about it. Of course nothing can be done about it because they probably do have something, and any force would be risky. Compare this to Iraq where there was little risk as iRaq has little, and unlike the some other countries in the region, apparently had relatively little influence in global events.

Of course if the US like, like the British empire in it's waning day, had not deployed it's forces so willy nilly, and has not spent itself to the brink of bankruptcy, there might be something we could do with Iran and N. Korea. As it is we can't even take care of the real and present threat, Afghanistan and Pakistan, so little else matters.

In the end though I think it is just PR. Just because you have the toys does not mean you know how to use them. And, unlike the end of WWII, two or three big bombs, with threats of more to follow, it not enough to win a confrontation. In any case, one can hardly argue that fanatical religious states with nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous. Israel, which ranks very low in freedoms granted by the modern state, and appears to be controlled by fundamentalism as any country in the region, has had nuclear weapons for years with little negatve effect.

There's a lot about this fabled US vs Iran rivalry that does not add up and it almost makes me think that to a large degree the Bush Administration is covertly fostering the rise of Iran as a middle eastern superpower.

Motive1. Geopolitically, US foreign policy is to create regional checks around the globe so that she can use her weight so swing a balance of power one way or the other but without having to be overtly committed. A strong Iran creates enormous problems for Russia and China both. China has no domestic oil whatsoever, and Russia is well within range of Iranian missiles.

2. Money. We often talk about the US petrodollar as a product of Saudi Arabia, but what's often overlooked is that the USA still possesses a fairly sizable proved reserve of oil in her own right. In essence, the dollar is not just backed by US influence in the middle east but also by the USA's own oil reserves. Yes, the USA does not pump enough of its own oil, but, if we were to throw the environment into the dumper, we could drill Alaska, drill offshore, grind up all the shale in Colorado, convert to coal to liquids, drill the Bakken, and we'd wind up with trillions of barrels of the stuff. So, in the long run, high oil prices benefit the United States, because ultimately, the USA has that money in the bank. Let's put it this way: ANWR alone is worth a trillion dollars.

Supporting Evidence1. Whose benefited. Everything the Bush Administration has done has benefited Iran from a security perspective. The Iranian foreign minister even pointed this out on NPR. Bush knocked off Iraq and Afghanistan both, and neither regime supported the USA. On the flipside, the high oil prices that exist partially because of the war in Iraq and the bellicosity with Iran actually are proving to be lucrative for nearly every traditionally Republican constituency. Oil men, miners, agribusiness, chemical, even US manufacturers have all benefited from rising oil prices and a devalued dollar. If Iran and the USA are enemies, both sides are laughing all the way to the bank.

2. History. Republicans, in particular, despite their bellicosity with Iran, have a long and fabled history of actually dealing with the Iran in pragmatic terms "behind the scenes". Ronald Reagan was nearly brought down because of a complicated deal which actually saw the USA supply weapons to Iran during the Iran - Iraq war. I mean, while Democrats talked rapproachment with Iran, Republicans were already making deals with them and hiding it.

Later on, administration officials from both Reagan and Bush I would both admit that they did, in fact, have a back door in communications to Iran. It's reasonable to think that a Dick Cheney who was an integral part of all of those administrations might actually have a back door to Iran himself. We do know, right away, that the government we work with in Iraq travels to Iran rather frequently. It's almost inconceivable that the USA would not be using the Iraqi leadership as the most covert sort of conduit.

3. Careful rules of engagement. The USA rightfully complains about the Iranians funding and helping anti-American insurgents in Iraq, but at the same time, the USA is also helping anti-Iranian insurgents in Iran. This is a sort of a standoff. Despite proclamations against Iranian leadership, the Administration has bent out of its way to say, for the most part, that Iranian leaders are not directly implicated in this and they actually might not be.

4. A total pass on WMD proves cooperation. The USA had absolutely no problem launching a unilateral war on Iraq because of WMD that didn't even exist, but Iran has 9000 centrifuges spinning and there's not been a shot fired. Even the claim that the Iraqi invasion has weakened the USA abilities to conduct airstrikes doesn't wash. The Navy and Air Force are certainly not tied down. The USA has, since the invasion of Iraq, conducted airstrikes in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan... rumoured to have conducted airstrikes in Oma

OMG. I had no idea that Israeli chicks were so hot. It would almost be a privilege to be killed by one. Now I know why we are on their side. We can't we recruit hot girls like that into our military? There should be some sort of international law against bombing or attacking countries with a high per capita hot girl ratio. Do the arab countries know about this? Too bad about the language though. It's one of the few languages that sounds worse than German to my ear. Of course Arabic is even worse. Clearing y

I wonder if you'd say the same thing if I killed (and raped, before AND after) your daughter and you have the choice of informing the police or staying silent.

Remember, before you answer : violence only creates more violence. You obviously know the police will use violence against me.

So... do you hide my crime ?

Peace man. Where do you live ? Is your daughter pretty ?

(this post is fiction, obviously, and only meant to illustrate the utter stupidity of this fake "pacifism", the fake "salvation" that non-violence supposedly provides).

Violence against Iran may prove to be a VERY good idea, it may prove to be a very bad idea. We don't know.

One thing is for sure however, Iran is using heavy water reactors, less efficient and more complex than light-water reactors. They make this uneconomical decision for a reason... because they can make bombs with it.

Do they want bombs for defense ? Why don't you answer this question for yourself. Is it reasonable to assume they need deterrence ? Or do they want to attack ? (little detail : like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq)

Everything belongs in context. In this context it's not about individual violence. A better description than the really over-the-top example you used would be:

You daughter gets raped and murdered. The crime gets reported. The person who is suspected of doing the crime lives in a run down apartment building that everyone knows houses nothing but criminals. Instead of arresting the suspect at work (imagine they know where he works, and no he hasn't ducked out) they decide instead to organize a SWAT rai

for sure? the main reason for a heavy water reactor is that it can run on natural uranium. It is one way to start a nuclear program when there is no enriched fuel. Sure it can do some neat tricks for bomb making, but also for research and industry.
You seem to be confused like a few others here on history, Iraq invaded Iran to start the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq even used chemical weapons. Iran has invaded no one for centuries.

A good case for getting out of the middle east. Iran and all these other "bad guys" wouldn't give two shits of interest about us if we weren't always getting involved in their regional affairs.Whenever one of these so-called "enemies" tries to resist our influence and encroachment, it is called "terrorism" and is used as an excuse to continue being involved and sacrificing ourselves.

The reality of this situation is:

1) Israel and the neo-conservative movement involves a lot of, ahem, Jewish people who root f

If Saddam had had nukes, he still would have got booted out of Kuwait, but he would have been safe from invasion.

No, Kuwait would have gotten nuked, after which there would be nobody left (Kuwait is really small, barely larger than Israel, with only a single city).

And there would have been no alternative to giving it to Iraq. After all, there would be maybe 10000 Kuwaiti's left world-wide.

What would have stopped Saddam from nuking them ? The common decency and conscience that mass-murdering thieves tend to exhibit in times of stress ?

Use them as deterrence? Push their will on the rest of the region, which is cowering in terror under the nuclear shadow?

Actually the region has seen a LOT of wars where the agressors KNOWINGLY attacked, even when they knew the attack would destroy them.

Take the Iraq-Iran war for example. Iraq saw Iran fall back over a mountain range, and tried to pursue. Less than a month after that the Iraqi army was in shambles, supply lines cut, barely capable of policing normal streets in territory on their own side of the border.

Are you saying Saddam didn't know that would happen ? He pushed the attack when he could have easily stopped in a quasi invulnerable position, which would have provided an ideal starting point for the next attack in 10 years.

Yet he attacked... and lost massively. (Iran lost massively too, because they kept sending in untrained children against buried-in posities. Iran lost about 500.000 of it's children that way, that is the main reason islam is so terribly unpopular in Iran nowadays)

But attacking, knowing full well that retaliation might come is not a rare event in the middle east.

Egypt's attacks against Israel. Hezbollah-Israel, Israel's independance war, Jordan versus Britain, Pakistan versus India (and even worse : Pakistan versus East-Pakistan/Bangladesh)... all are wars that the attacker could in no way hope to win...

And this is a tradition that goes back tens of centuries. When the muslims decided to attack the crusader states, they knew it would mean they'd fall to the mongols, that over 35 million people would starve (because there are letters, preserved by the libraries of Byzantium, that literally say this would happen). The muslims attacked, "won", got massacred by the mongols, and of the remaining muslims, at least 30 million starved, but not after killing the entire city that the sultan inhabited, including the sultan himself.

So let's be careful with "they won't attack if they can't reasonably win" ideas.

You make the stupid mistake to think that the Iranian government is there to defend it's people. It's not. It's there only to conquer, and to enforce islam (just read their constitution). Same with Saddam's government. It wasn't there for Iraqi's to prosper, it was there for Saddam to prosper. It attacked because of Saddam's pride.

Yeah, I agree. If we had actually been supporting democracy and human-rights for the last 50 years instead of any government (no matter how evil) who was anti-communism, then we would have been a lot better off. Here's to the future and hopes that we've learned from our past mistakes.

(this post is fiction, obviously, and only meant to illustrate the utter stupidity of this fake "pacifism", the fake "salvation" that non-violence supposedly provides).

No. This post is strawman you describe a caricature of the problem that you did invent yourself and that has nothing to do with the reality and then you ridicule that creation of yours.

- You compare calling the police to violence, whereas normally, in a civilised country the expected outcome of a (successful) intervention of the Police, will finally end up in court in a fair trial, with the criminal being subject to what punition has been deemed relevant by the law (which law itself should preferably have been voted democratically by the population).Pacifism is not about inaction. Pacifism is about trying to reach results while resorting to more modern and less barbaric means.

- You compare a situation where the horrible crime has been committed, with a situation where one might encounter a menace and is resorting preventively on violence. The more exact parallel would be beating the head of some random person into pulp, on the grounds that there's a doubt that maybe that random person could have planned to rape twice and murder your daughter.

- Why are you resorting to violence *for* in the place ? What was the goal of you action ? You wanted to make the world a better place ? A better place devoid of "Evil Guys" who might use nukes against you ? And what do you do against them ? Drop bombs on their country ? How is that different from being an Evil Guy ? If you resort to violence to solve your problem, you end up being not different from the guys themselves which cause said problems.

like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq

You fail at history. Saddam started the Iran-Iraq war, basically at our, the U.S., bidding. Of course, there wouldn't be a foreign military in the region that they might be worried about attacking them.

This also assumes that they really are secretly building a bomb, which has hardly been established, despite your intimations otherwise.

No, you live in Israel where you're the only nuclear power in the region. If I lived in any of the Arab cities Tel Aviv could target with its medium-range weapons (and at one point I did), I'd be pretty pleased if we had something to fight back with. Hezbollah/Hamas/The Syrians have rockets and some decrepid MiGs (with shit pilots) and you have F-16s and (at a conservative estimate) 75 nuclear warheads.

See this? It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for you. Feel special yet?

If you seriously believe that Israel would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Israel propaganda that pervades Middle-Eastern life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic governments in Iran and Syria and to a lesser extent those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.

If you seriously believe that Iran would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Iran propaganda that pervades the American life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic government in United States.

The anti-Iran position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.

What makes you think that the government of Israel would not use their nukes?

I said that they wouldn't use it as a first strike weapon; I'm sure if they were in danger of being overrun, they'd use them. But you say that you believe they act in their own self-interest. Do you realize how small of an area we're talking about? A nuclear strike by Israel into Syria or Iran would almost surely lead to radioactive fallout blowing through Israeli cities and polluting Israeli water-supplies as well.

It's hard to argue that nuking Japan was substantially different from the previous fire bombing campaigns. That aside, I think one of the best pieces of evidence that the US substantially values human life is that in the wars the US has fought since WWII massive strategic air campaigns weren't used.If you compare US tactics during WWII to those employed more recently, its hard to escape the conclusion that the US currently substantially values the lives of foreigners. If the US didn't, Iraq would be strewn

If you think no one would want to attack Iran you haven't been watching the joint sabre-rattling in the news from the US and Israel. Who did we attack, Iraq, the relatively stable country with no nuclear weapons, or North Korea, the ticking time bomb of regional destablization who already had them? Nuclear weapons seem like a fine deterrent again.

Um, please look at the things that have happened in the past few years. Two of Iran's neighboring nations have been invaded, and the rulers at the times of the invasions have been killed publicly. The nation that did the invading stated at the begining of this that they also wanted to invade another country, North Korea. North Korea got it's hands on some "nukes" and shouted as loud as they could that they have them. North Korea has not been invaded and Kim Jong Il is still alive.

Yes, if I was Ahmadinejad I would be trying like hell to get me some deterrence to avoid being bombed. I mean imagine if you are Iran, look east, look west and then shit yourself. And our (USA) decision to *not* invade North Korea gave him what he could logically see as a possible solution. Did we force Iran's hand? I believe so, even if indirectly.

(and Ahmadinejad knows this, as he's a civil engineer)

I guess the old saying "MechE's make weapons, CivE's make targets" applies then?

The Chief Judge that presided in the early part of the proceedings resigned in protest against the blatant interference by the Iraqi regime installed by the occupying power. He was replaced by a judge who had no qualms in disregarding all established principles of fair trial and was willing to hand down a judgment inconsistent with the evidence adduced.

And who's jurisdiction was the court under. It couldn't be the international courts, he was being tried for actions committed before it existed and thus outside of its jurisdiction

If it was Iraq's jurisdiction, then by Iraq law, Saddam was still president and thus had immunity from prosecution.

The summery of this post is.The court that sentenced Saddam to death had no jurisdiction over him, was highly influenced by the controlling forces (The Iraq government, and probably the US), and freely broke the law to deliver the guilty verdict

Saddam did a lot of evil things I'm sure, and if its all true, he did deserve death in my books. But to suggest that his trial was just and fair is a bold lie, committed either through ignorance or unbridled emotion.

It's about acquiring nuclear weapons with which they can force their will upon others through threat or action. They have stated time and again they wish to obliterate Israel. Why do you not take them at their word?

They must know that using nukes against US interests equates to suicide. They are short on reliable delivery systems and development facilities. At best they could take out one city before retaliation.

This is a little silly on the face of it. There is little doubt that Israel could obliterate them right back and that is BEFORE we chuck a MIRV or two in their general direction. Israel has reliable delivery systems and there is very little doubt they have nukes of their own. And more than one or two nukes. It's probably more like 30. Israel can annihilate the cities of any Middle Eastern state of their choosing and still have a stick to wave afterwards.

If Iran were so foolish as to attempt to "obliterate" Israel, Iran would cease to exist within hours of the attempt.

Middle Eastern leaders talk of destroying Israel because it plays well to the masses and the Iranian leadership are crazy like foxes in this regard. These leaders themselves live comfortable privileged lives and will not act like the young suicide bombers they employ as cannon fodder. The mad-dog Arab who will do anything is a propaganda tool meant to scare the shit out of the West. And it works.

Iran is not going to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. Even the most rabid antisemites in Iran would be given serious pause by the thought of the the response from Israel's arsenal. Their population center would be destroyed within minutes of the launch.

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work with people who WANT TO DIE. Besides, it's easy to make such a substantial gamble with other people's lives.The fundamentalists running Iraq have stated time and again that they wish to accelerate the return of the 12th Imam (the "hidden Imam") which will signal the end of the earth. This divine saviour ("Mahdi") will appear at the End of Days. Only after chaos and global war will the Mahdi lead Muslims to an era of universal peace.

Really now? You think everyone in Iran is ready to die, and for their country to be wiped off the map? No one would have any objections? Despite their propensity for using the tactics of a suicide bomber, Arabs (and in this case Persians) aren't stupid.

I've lived there, and I've seen them. The people who least believe in any imaginary being in the sky are the same people who preach most about its existence, and themselves being his representatives on earth, the latter of which is the reason they need religion.

These people are only there for business, they are businessmen.

I start by more familiar examples, say Dick Cheney. Does anybody believe him to be a true Christian or a ruthless businessman who'll do anything for the sake of profit? Or when he talks of supporting troops, is he telling what he truly means?

In Iran we have our own businessmen. Since the 'Islamic' revolution of 1979, these people have taken over the government in a country where 90%+ of the economy is owned and operated by the government.

A clear example, is the largest of these business entities: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), most recent bogeyman on CNN/FOX. While the American media focuses on the 'military' part of IRGC's operation, they neglect to mention the much much bigger side of IRGC.
Revolutionary Guards is the single biggest business entity in Iran, they build all the dams, bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad, they operate civilian airports all across the country, they do the largest mining operations, they own many of the largest and most profit generating financial institutions in Iran and this list goes on forever.
Almost half of the members of the current parliament are former IRGC members, Ahmadinejad himself made his way to being Tehran's Mayor and later, Iran's president through IRGC.

Then there's Mesbah Yazdi, a mid-level clergy, known as the mentor of Ahmadinejad, the biggest fucking piece of shit I know in Iran. Plays the same role to Ahmadi Nejad as Dick plays to Bush. But there's another side to this guy, he is also known as "Sultan of Sugar" in Iran. He controls import, distribution and sale of all Sugar in Iran. Believe me, in a country of 70 million population a monopoly on sugar is better than a monopoly on gold mines. He also says that the 'Zionist regime' of Israel is doomed, however nuking them means end of the sweet sugar business for him.

Former president Rafsanjani, former parliament speaker Nategh Noori and many others are businessmen too. They don't give a fuck about religion unless in public when preaching people.

Oh, did you hear the Moral Police Chief of Tehran was recently arrested in a brothel with six girls [timesonline.co.uk] and they were mocking muslim prayers, naked? That screams of the hypocrisy of the current situation in Iran.

I just want you to think, what benefit does nuking Israel which guarantees a much much harsher reaction from Israel bring to these ruling businessmen? See, that's why Iran, even with nukes is no threat at all to any other country?

All that matters to these people is survival of their business, they are not religious zealots, they don't believe in the second coming or afterlife or crap like what they preach to people. If a day comes where wiping their asses with pages of Quran helps them keep control of their business, then that's what they WILL HAPPILY DO.

My kingdom for some mod points! I'm so glad that someone knowledgeable finally spoke out and dispelled this myth about how Muslims are all sand-bathing, car-bombing people who eat babies as they twirl their mustaches and cackle at their insidious plans! Corruption, greed, religious zealotry as propaganda, massive hypocrisy, warmongering leaders, secret clubs of the ruling elite? Why, they're more westernised that we are! Bravo!

Funny you should mention Chamberlain. People tend to assume that he avoided going to war with Hitler because he was a wimp. Thing is, when Hitler first emerged as a threat, the UK was in no position to challenge him. On top of that, there was a lot of anti-war sentiment that didn't go away until Hitler showed his true colors — several times. By playing the wimp, Chamberlain bought the Allies time to rearm. Of course, they squandered that advantage when the war actually started, but that's another issue.

There's also the little detail that many leading politicos in Chamberlain's Conservative Party considered Hitler a hero. These were the guys in the House of Commons who booed Churchill the first time he entered the House as Prime Minister. Eventually, they became politically irrelevent, but until they did, any Conservative PM who had gone against Hitler would have been out of office faster than you can say "jackboot".

Now, we don't have a lot of Islamists in U.S. politics, but aside from that, we're pretty much in the same spot now the Brits were then. It's true our armed forces are way better than theirs were, but between our global committments and the Iraq tarbaby, we've nothing to spare. Even if we did have the troops to spare, we've gone and used up all our credibility with our recent fuckups. Starting another war would turn us into absolute pariahs.

And here's one thing that really bugs me: how can we tell Iran that they can't have nukes when we have thousands. Which we are not only making no move to draw down, we are actually planning to increase

One other thing: are you willing to pay all the extra taxes it would take to cover a third war? It's true that we've been running the first two on credit, but that's playing bloody hell with the value of the dollar. So I think we should assume we're at our credit limit.